Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:46 -0800 From: David Robertson Subject: Re: why the male member is not referred to as Gertrude On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Ronald Butters wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Donald Larmouth wrote > > >. . . I never thought of body parts as "possessions" but > > as extensions of myself. > > I believe that there is a technical term for this: "inalienable > possession." Some languages mirror the difference, e.g., in French one > says (as I recall) "Je vais a' laver mes chats" but "Je vais a' me laver les > mains." > Note that many languages overtly code the difference between alienable and inalienable possession. Going even further with this is Dakota, which according to I believe Stephen Return Riggs' grammar distinguishes not only the above 2 categories, but also a third category marking only body parts! FYI Dave